Glen Greenwald: Dems Are Panicking Because Barr Will Now Investigate Real Conspiracy

[AnonymityX1000]

The dossier was originally funded by a republican before a democrat took up the funding.

Conservative Website First Funded Anti-Trump Research by Firm That Later Produced Dossier

Okay, so a Republican started it, stopped it and then the Dems told Fusion GPS keep going we'll pay. I don't think that absolves them but I hope so. I'm hoping they are not found guilty of anything either. But at the same time accusing Trump of collusion and the media harping on it daily shines a light on their similar deeds. They fukked up.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Okay, so a Republican started it, stopped it and then the Dems told Fusion GPS keep going we'll pay. I don't think that absolves them but I hope so. I'm hoping they are not found guilty of anything either. But at the same time accusing Trump of collusion and the media harping on it daily shines a light on their similar deeds. They fukked up.

You think the former FBI director, CIA director, NSA chief, and DNI all are full of shyt about the president of the united states?

 

[88m3]

In the last year and a half?! That's a huge window. Has he been on there since the Burr synopsis and the Mueller report came out? Maybe things changed in the last year or so.
He's racist but provides a platform. He probably thinks it's worth it to get his points across. I mean Bill Maher is comfortable enough to drop N bombs whenever and is pretty Islamaphobic and plenty of lefties go on there to. You gotta make trade offs in this political landscape.

I was speaking for myself. Again I welcome you to make a spreadsheet of his appearances and prove your point.

Maher and Carlson and their audiences aren't even remotely comparable. Stop trying to muddy the water with nonsense.

 

[AnonymityX1000]

You think the former FBI director, CIA director, NSA chief, and DNI all are full of shyt about the president of the united states?

I don't know but it couldn't be proven and a lot of time, money and trust with the public was spent on it and it amounted to nothing. Now Rs are emboldened to do to them what they did to Trump. Putting all the eggs in the collusion basket was dumb and it backfired.

 

[AnonymityX1000]

I was speaking for myself. Again I welcome you to make a spreadsheet of his appearances and prove your point.

Maher and Carlson and their audiences aren't even remotely comparable. Stop trying to muddy the water with nonsense.

What did Carlson do that was so bad that Maher didn't?

 

[the cac mamba]

This is not true.

There was collusion but not what they can prove in court with parallel reconstruction outside of classified intelligence.

he quoted mueller's words and your response is "that's not true"

 

[88m3]

What did Carlson do that was so bad that Maher didn't?

I think it's past time you prove Greenwald doesn't have access to other venues.

 

[storyteller]

You can't say, "there was a strong case" and "they didn't feel they could prove guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt." Those are contradictory accounts. If you can't prove it that means it isn't strong.
Again, Dems should have took the L on this and concentrated on winning in 2020. Now they got egg on their face, the general population's faith in the election system is severely shaken and Trump had more credibility when he calls this a witch hunt. This is a huge L for Dems and the country.

Beyond a reasonable doubt =/= a strong case

When the report says

Trump Jr. appears to have accepted that offer and to have arranged a meeting to receive those materials. Documentary evidence in the form of e-mail chains supports the inference that Kushner and Manafort were aware of that purpose and attended the June 9 meeting anticipating the receipt of helpful information to the Campaign from Russian sources.

What would you define that as describing?

 

[AnonymityX1000]

I think it's past time you prove Greenwald doesn't have access to other venues.

Or you could have just googled it if you want to know so bad. You know, like I did. lol
Glenn Greenwald Says MSNBC Banned Him After He Criticized Rachel Maddow

 

[AnonymityX1000]

Beyond a reasonable doubt =/= a strong case

When the report says


What would you define that as describing?

A theory that possibly happened. When you use words like 'appears' and 'anticipated' you are theorizing and have no proof.

 

[storyteller]

A theory that possibly happened. When you use words like 'appears' and 'anticipated' you are theorizing and have no proof.

This is why “strong case” and “beyond a reasonable doubt” need to be treated as different concepts. I wouldn’t call an e-mail chain with clear implications, no proof. It just doesn’t reach the standards of beyond a reasonable doubt.

This part right here:
“Documentary evidence in the form of e-mail chains supports the inference that Kushner and Manafort were aware of that purpose and attended the June 9 meeting anticipating the receipt of helpful information to the Campaign from Russian sources.”

Points to there being a strong case to make. Just no smoking gun. Mueller wouldn’t point out the implications of those messages otherwise imo. And I’m not theorizing, I’m quoting the mueller report.

 

[AnonymityX1000]

This is why “strong case” and “beyond a reasonable doubt” need to be treated as different concepts. I wouldn’t call an e-mail chain with clear implications, no proof. It just doesn’t reach the standards of beyond a reasonable doubt.

This part right here:
“Documentary evidence in the form of e-mail chains supports the inference that Kushner and Manafort were aware of that purpose and attended the June 9 meeting anticipating the receipt of helpful information to the Campaign from Russian sources.”

Points to there being a strong case to make. Just no smoking gun. Mueller wouldn’t point out the implications of those messages otherwise imo. And I’m not theorizing, I’m quoting the mueller report.

I'm saying Mueller is theorizing not you.
And all he is saying there was anticipation of a crime not that one actually happened.
If my friend's girl cheated on him, and he texts me he is going to kill her and we have a long back and forth about it and it ends with him saying he is driving over her house with a gun. What if he then drives there thinks better of it and goes home without doing anything. Was there a crime? You can't infer what you want from communications. You have to use the facts on the ground.

 

[Strapped]

Bar shieeted on them , let's see how they keep him inline

 

[storyteller]

I'm saying Mueller is theorizing not you.
And all he is saying there was anticipation of a crime not that one actually happened.
If my friend's girl cheated on him, and he texts me he is going to kill her and we have a long back and forth about it and it ends with him saying he is driving over her house with a gun. What if he then drives there thinks better of it and goes home without doing anything. Was there a crime? You can't infer what you want from communications. You have to use the facts on the ground.

I'd say this is more like the friend's girlfriend having a phone full of messages planning to meet with a dude to cheat.
Then she showed up to cheat.
But when she leaves the hotel room she says she didn't actually cheat and thought they were just gonna watch Netflix and chill.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Innocent until proven guilty means what then?

Do you watch Billions on HBO?

Theres a different from a "refusal to prosecute" and "We can't prove this beyond a reasonable doubt"